Lucy Letby Case #71

[sebanna]

It must be very hard to be a juror and make a decision which will brand someone as a criminal and send them to prison, the jury in this case don't need to worry about this. I think they will find her guilty.

I can't believe Lucy is agreeing that the babies were deliberately attacked, just not by her. Are we suppose to believe she was framed and the perpetrator gave up murdering when she was removed from NNU.

 

[Fruitshop]

“….an even uglier, wonky eyed, double chinned hunter.”
Thank you Kiki, that is gold!
Wish we could see a profile shot of what she looks like now but unfortunately the same old mug shots get trotted out for years. Wish I could see her in court.

 

[Pulltheotherone]

Yeah …see you luce
For the REST OF HER LIFE.

 

[SarahG300]

Hey everyone, I'm so sorry for how long it has taken me to get back to you and leave you all waiting. I live a very long way from Manchester and had a funny turn on the way home, and have been sleeping for most of the past couple of days. I just keep falling back to sleep, then in between trying to catch up on missed jobs.

It was me that Janet had a go at (after I defended her on here the other day! Little does she know!). I'm a little bit worried you will all be disappointed after all the anticipation, it's not that dramatic and was quite brief! It was just her entitlement and hostility, considering who she is. There's a bit of context for why I think I was targeted, but I will get to that later in the post. It feels like I should talk about court before talking about myself too much, so scroll down if you want to skip to Janet content - but don't get too excited, it's not that interesting! Much more "interesting" is the very well known trial watcher who has taken up residence in Janet's rectum, "looking after" her and managing to get themself in the position of being officially considered a "friend or family", so getting guaranteed front row seats in court.

Spoiler: Lucy

Lucy... there is just so much to say I barely know where to start! Disregarding the quality of her answers for now, overall her performance has been more polished than last year. Last year she seemed like a cross between a teenager and a politician, using blatant, juvenile tactics like asking stupid pointless questions to stall for time, while being evasive and trying her utmost to give non-answers to everything. Her answers were very impulsive last year and she seemed like an imbecile.

This trial, she took her time to answer, was being extra careful to not paint herself into any corners (failing spectacularly, which I'll get to) and has reduced the stupid questions to only occasionally pretending she doesn't understand things she particularly doesn't want to answer. Also, she didn't cry at all on the stand. I'm wondering if this is because her parents aren't present to perform for, or because she was criticised last year by NJ for only crying for herself and not the victims. So I have still never seen her in snivel mode, she's been a poker-faced harpy every time I've seen her.

Last year, I was absolutely flabbergasted at her behaviour. She was so unshakably confident and unflappable, I had honestly never seen anybody like her. The way she would say two contradictory things at the same time, and give the most ridiculous answers with such complete confidence and conviction, makes you doubt your own mind at the words you're hearing and makes your brain think it must be reasonable somehow? She made her non-answers sound like proper answers just by using the tone of her voice to imply things she didn't actually say. You had to really listen to the content of what she was saying, rather than how she said it, which I do do due to my interest in statement analysis. But I could really tell how she could be convincing to some people.

She is pretty much the same this year, though it loses the effect somewhat when she becomes too hostile. It also loses the effect once you are used to her: she was my first time witnessing a female psychopath in action, but I'm desensitized to it now (if anyone's interested, listen to Beverley Allitt's police interviews on Daily Motion to experience similar chutzpah, and use of vocal intonations). Nevertheless, one of the jurors appeared transfixed by watching her, and I like to think they were just as dumbstruck as I first was.

Lucy wouldn't have had much feedback on her previous testimony; she has very little access to the internet, so wouldn't have seen the critical comments mocking her performance. Her only access to the outside world is limited phone calls with Mummy, Daddy, and maybe Janet, who will only tell Diddums what a great job she did and how they're all big meanie pants for not believing her. She was in a separate court, so wouldn't have heard the police laughing at her. Bowel Movement is not supposed to advise her on her giving testimony, so I wonder if her slight improvements came from attempts at self-reflection.

On the other hand, this time she made less effort to pretend to be polite, and was openly contemptuous and abrupt with NJ from the word go. I guess she doesn't need to worry about the outcome so much, so she's feeling less stressed and just being herself. She was really arrogant at points.

One example is when NJ was repeatedly questioning her and Lucy was failing to give a proper answer (as usual), Lucy responded by saying "We're going round in circles" as though it was his fault. She has no humility or shame whatsoever for the position she is in: a convicted serial baby killer on the stand for attacking another baby. It's as if she thinks it's her place to criticise him daring to question her, rather than her being in the position of somebody who really, really needs to account for herself.

Another is that she has a real thing about being briefly trained at Liverpool Women's Hospital.

Despite polishing her performance, her answers remained as ridiculous as ever. "I don't recall" and "I can't answer that" were repeated ad nauseum. Despite not recalling the entire event, she does recall that she didn't know Baby K was having an x-ray (proving her tube was in the correct position minutes before her second tube displacement). This was quite funny, she answered "no" then corrected to "I don't recall". NJ pulled her up on it, and she played it off, completely undaunted.

She also recalls that she was informed of Baby K's death within days of it happening; that she didn't see Baby K move on the night she doesn't recall; that the handover hadn't happened yet at her third tube displacement; that Baby K did have her given name before leaving the CoC; and that she doesn't recall why she Facebooked the K family surname of the family and baby who she doesn't recall.

She tried so hard to not paint herself into a corner that she ended up causing herself more trouble and tanking her defense. She utterly refused to commit to her defense statement that Dr Jayaram had it in for her and was not acting in good faith. She refused to say he was incorrect, fabricating, or whatever, only that she couldn't recall, and couldn't answer for Dr. Jayaram.

I don't really know why this is, but the fact she wouldn't stick to her defense statement obviously must be very important because both NJ and BM fixated on it in their questioning. The defense statement is that Dr J isn't acting in good faith, and she thinks this because of his previous conduct towards her. NJ tried to pin her down on exactly when he was not acting in good faith. She tried her best to be evasive and non-committal, but eventually said it refers to her grievance and his behaviour surrounding that whole situation. NJ questioned her repeatedly on this; she did change her answer a bit, but the grievance produce was her most regular answer.

Spoiler: Ben Myers shouts at Lucy

The most obvious interpretation and inference of the defense statement is that Dr J is making tit up because he has it in for Lucy. That's it, that plus "I don't recall" is her defense.

In re-examination, BM questioned her repeatedly, desperately trying to lead her to saying the right thing: that the not-good faith also refers to the police interviews about her, not just the whole grievance thing in 2016. It was so blatantly obvious what he wanted her to say, but she just wasn't co-operating. She was as evasive with him as she was with NJ in refusing to get to the point.

BM lost his tit! He bleeping shouted at her! He was getting so bleeping frustrated, shouting MISS LETBY, EXPLAIN!! and trying to lead his horse to water but it just wouldn't bleeping drink! He finally, finally pinned her down to the crux of the matter, a yes or no question: does it include the police interviews or not? She was so obviously supposed to say yes. But she said no. I swear I literally felt Ben Myers deflate in that moment. He just went silent then swiftly moved on to avoid drawing attention to it (lol).

It was the stand-out moment of her testimony for me, and I can't believe it wasn't conveyed in the reporting. Last year it was "I knew what I was looking for - at" and the dance-the-dance exchanges with NJ. This year it came courtesy of her own defense! What the duck must the jury think of that?? I think Myers' anger just made her look even worse, because it's so ducked up for a defense barrister to be driven to shouting at his client like that.

What the duck was she playing at???? I can only imagine that she thinks being consistent with her answers between NJ and BM will look good? But she's too arrogant to listen to her barrister: if he thinks it's important for her to say, there must be a reason for that, and she should have played ball. Lucy though she knew better.

Little Miss PTSD didn't flinch, by the way. I think Ben Myers has trouble containing his anger. It's a very unpleasant trait in a man. A lot of women would have been a rattled.

Spoiler: The legal case for attempted murder

So once again, Lucy has nuked her own defense into orbit by giving her tuppence worth:

• on Monday she admitted that displacing a breathing tube in a baby that age is deadly (satisfying the intent part of attempted murder)
• on both days she's contradicted her defense statement that Dr J is not acting in good faith
• she refuses to criticise Dr J or commit to anything regarding him
• she says she can't recall the whole thing even though she recalls some very specific bits
• she pretty much accepts a nurse's witness account that Lucy was the one to alert the third desaturation
• and, she's made an a of herself on the stand.

I honestly thought that she had a good chance of getting away with it all, before she got on her broomstick and flew to the stand. I think the chances of conviction have increased from maybe 40% to 80%.

It's obvious she did it: that much is proven by timed computer records proving that she was at Baby K's cot side just before the collapse, while an x-ray minutes before showed the breathing tube was perfect before Lucy was there. The baby was definitely sedated for this.

However, the charge is only for the first desaturation; the second and third ones, the prosecution say, were just her attempts to make it look like there was a chronic problem with the tube after she was caught red handed during the first incident. The problem is, the first desaturation is basically Dr Jayaram's word vs Lucy's. Unfortunately, apparently Dr J didn't do a very good job on the stand and I've been told he was nervous, with BM giving him a really hard time. I believe Dr J, but there is a lot of potential for people to consider him not credible (thankfully, Lucy's made herself look even worse). Also the timeline for the first desaturation is very confusing, and the prosecution can't prove that the baby was given morphine beforehand, though it's a possibility.

The jury have to believe Dr J's account of the first breathing tube displacement is proven, and intent to kill is proven (this second bit is ticked off - thanks Lucifer!). I really hope the jury consider that the second incident is proven, which increases the likelihood of the first. I wish the second and third incidents were considered lesser charges in their own right.

Spoiler: hunter

It bears repeating that Lucy is now a hag. Last year she looked a bit plain and haggard, but now she's a full-blown unfortunate. Her police interviews were played again on Tuesday and I was once again still shocked at the change in appearance. In court, you can only see her from the side, and there are TV screens showing her from the front, so it switches straight from seeing a double-chinned, googly-eyed, saggy-lipped, droopy-lidded crone, to the pretty young woman she was just a few years ago, and back again. I have never seen someone lose their looks so completely in such a short space of time.

Her eyes are so weird. They are droopy, wonky, heavy-lidded, deeply recessed into her skull, blinking and rolling about all over the place. Her lids are so droopy they make her eyes look half-closed from the side, which makes them look like the eyes of a newly dead person.

It must be hard to go from being decent-looking to outright weird in just a few years, and to lose whatever interpersonal benefits she was used to receiving. Having said that, she seems to think the sun shines out of her own a and doesn't care about anything. She wasn't self conscious about unleashing the Nigel Farage frog throat whenever she tilted her head down, an action which would also cause her mouth to pucker.

Spoiler: Me being told off by ushers

I had a two horrible moments in court which led to being told off by ushers. One was when I tried to drink from my part-used water bottle. It was a very thin plastic material with a pull-up lid, and when I opened it, it suctioned air in and de-crumpled with a very loud CRACK, that was apparently heard on the audio in the satellite court (Miss PTSD didn't flicker at this, or any other loud noise). It was so embarrassing, the last thing anyone wants is cause any disturbance. The usher GLARED at me for two minutes straight. I don't know what he hoped to achieve, there was nothing I could do after the event. The other one is when a break was called, before the public had been let out (you're supposed to wait to be released), the woman positioned next to me said "excuse me" relatively loudly for the situation, and tried to get by. I stood up to let her pass and thought she might have an emergency. She was told by other observers she needed to wait, and sat back down. The court staff were scoffing and judgmental about this mistake. I think I was considered as somebody who was also trying to leave ahead of time, rather than somebody letting someone else pass. I got told off (or really, pulled to one side and had polite words with) for these some time after they happened.

I didn't see the other woman come back. They were excessively harsh about in innocent mistake from somebody who didn't know the court system. It's not like they tell you much about the in-out protocols, you're mostly just expected to know. Also, the mistake didn't actually cause any real problems. I think she might not have come back because she was embarrassed, which is a shame.

There is a general aura of unwelcomeness for trial watchers, I could feel right from the beginning that we are not wanted there. I think this might be because the place is swarming with Lucy's fans, so there's probably an assumption that all court watchers are of that persuasion. I had to keep reminding myself that being able to observe court is an essential part of open justice, and that I have every right to be there.

I felt very conspicuous because of the aforementioned incidents, and also because I am visibly autistic, plus was mostly sitting diagonally as one of my eyes is very short sighted.

Spoiler: Janet!

So after a break, in the corridor, I was talking to an older NG man about Lucy's performance and was saying what had improved since last year. (I had previously talked to him in the morning, establishing - like all the new NGs - he had not actually followed the previous trial, and I had said how it all looked much worse for her evidence-wise during that trial, which surprised him). Anyway I think the bits I mentioned were less impulsivity, and less pointless questions. I was in the middle of the corridor, and Janet was facing me, though I wasn't paying her any attention. She suddenly confronted me, saying something like "if you want to talk, can you do it somewhere else" in an angry/upset/anxious tone. I said something like I'm allowed to talk in the corridor. She repeated something like what she previously said, but added something like "keep your voice down because it's not appropriate". I again stated " I am talking in the corridor, are we not allowed to talk in corridors?" which she didn't answer. I'm not sure what she did next and I resumed talking to the NG.

I felt really curtailed in what I could say because I didn't know for sure if Janet would be given any special considerations as a friend of the defendant, plus I was on the backfoot after the previous court problems and didn't want to risk being kicked out. I wanted to say, "what is your authority to be telling me what to do?" She was so entitled to think it's her place to tell anyone else off! Who the duck does she think she is, she's just a fool who's ruining her own life to prostrate herself to a serial baby killer.

I was really butthurt about her mentioning "keep your voice down" because I have an unfortunate voice and have had non-stop mistreatment and judgement for it since I was 12. It is a physical fact that high-pitched voices are perceived as louder at the same decibels as regular voices (this is because each cilia in the ear collects sounds at specific frequencies, and in a nutshell the cilia collect more sound waves of a high pitched frequency, so it becomes amplified in the ear) so I'm always being silenced, despite speaking normally. It also stands out and is heard above all other voices. I think Janet was gone by this point, while I was bending the ear of the NG about this, suspecting this was why Janet targeted me as opposed to anyone else in the corridor speaking about her queen.

In hindsight I think she might have also known I was an easy target because of the things mentioned in the previous section. More importantly, I had previously spoken to her new bestie about Lucy in front of her. Which leads me to this whole other strange situation:

Spoiler: Janet's new BFF

So a pro-guilty trial watcher has gained entry into Janet's inner circle and become her confidant. Allegedly, Janet is "vulnerable" and this person is officially supporting them. This enables the trial watcher to enter court first with "friends and family", and to gain inside knowledge about the Letby's. All the other trial watcher stalwarts are pretending to not know each other to facilitate this, creating a very weird atmosphere.

I don't know myself whether Janet is "vulnerable" as I didn't see much of her aside from that altercation. However, she is at the very least a complete fool who is easy to mug off. It is possible to be both an entitled bleep, and vulnerable. If it's true that she is vulnerable, then I personally disapprove of the deception.

The NGs

I spoke to a lot of the NGs, and actually liked a few of them. Some fit the stereotypes, and some don't - I think the mainstream media articles have done one hell of a lot of damage. I will save the NGs for another post, because this is already too long.
---
I also met some fellow Tattlers @Wine o'clock, @Dolly Daydream, a couple who don't have usernames, and of course @SarahG300 back last year.

Oh Cack,

Thank you for the detailed analysis of court this week & hope your feeling better now & glad you met other tattlers & was looked after!

So sorry Janet subjected you to that in the court corridor it was uncalled for, her silly tantrums that she also did on the first Wednesday there is no need for it and am sorry you had that to to deal with along with the usher thing - last year we could come and go as we pleased in court 8 as did the police so you weren’t to know.

Loved your write up but this as I was reading at work today had me howling & I’ve told my daughter to!

“I honestly thought that she had a good chance of getting away with it all, before she got on her broomstick and flew to the stand”

Take care & look after yourself!!

 

[wine o clock]

Hey everyone, I'm so sorry for how long it has taken me to get back to you and leave you all waiting. I live a very long way from Manchester and had a funny turn on the way home, and have been sleeping for most of the past couple of days. I just keep falling back to sleep, then in between trying to catch up on missed jobs.

It was me that Janet had a go at (after I defended her on here the other day! Little does she know!). I'm a little bit worried you will all be disappointed after all the anticipation, it's not that dramatic and was quite brief! It was just her entitlement and hostility, considering who she is. There's a bit of context for why I think I was targeted, but I will get to that later in the post. It feels like I should talk about court before talking about myself too much, so scroll down if you want to skip to Janet content - but don't get too excited, it's not that interesting! Much more "interesting" is the very well known trial watcher who has taken up residence in Janet's rectum, "looking after" her and managing to get themself in the position of being officially considered a "friend or family", so getting guaranteed front row seats in court.

Spoiler: Lucy

Lucy... there is just so much to say I barely know where to start! Disregarding the quality of her answers for now, overall her performance has been more polished than last year. Last year she seemed like a cross between a teenager and a politician, using blatant, juvenile tactics like asking stupid pointless questions to stall for time, while being evasive and trying her utmost to give non-answers to everything. Her answers were very impulsive last year and she seemed like an imbecile.

This trial, she took her time to answer, was being extra careful to not paint herself into any corners (failing spectacularly, which I'll get to) and has reduced the stupid questions to only occasionally pretending she doesn't understand things she particularly doesn't want to answer. Also, she didn't cry at all on the stand. I'm wondering if this is because her parents aren't present to perform for, or because she was criticised last year by NJ for only crying for herself and not the victims. So I have still never seen her in snivel mode, she's been a poker-faced harpy every time I've seen her.

Last year, I was absolutely flabbergasted at her behaviour. She was so unshakably confident and unflappable, I had honestly never seen anybody like her. The way she would say two contradictory things at the same time, and give the most ridiculous answers with such complete confidence and conviction, makes you doubt your own mind at the words you're hearing and makes your brain think it must be reasonable somehow? She made her non-answers sound like proper answers just by using the tone of her voice to imply things she didn't actually say. You had to really listen to the content of what she was saying, rather than how she said it, which I do do due to my interest in statement analysis. But I could really tell how she could be convincing to some people.

She is pretty much the same this year, though it loses the effect somewhat when she becomes too hostile. It also loses the effect once you are used to her: she was my first time witnessing a female psychopath in action, but I'm desensitized to it now (if anyone's interested, listen to Beverley Allitt's police interviews on Daily Motion to experience similar chutzpah, and use of vocal intonations). Nevertheless, one of the jurors appeared transfixed by watching her, and I like to think they were just as dumbstruck as I first was.

Lucy wouldn't have had much feedback on her previous testimony; she has very little access to the internet, so wouldn't have seen the critical comments mocking her performance. Her only access to the outside world is limited phone calls with Mummy, Daddy, and maybe Janet, who will only tell Diddums what a great job she did and how they're all big meanie pants for not believing her. She was in a separate court, so wouldn't have heard the police laughing at her. Bowel Movement is not supposed to advise her on her giving testimony, so I wonder if her slight improvements came from attempts at self-reflection.

On the other hand, this time she made less effort to pretend to be polite, and was openly contemptuous and abrupt with NJ from the word go. I guess she doesn't need to worry about the outcome so much, so she's feeling less stressed and just being herself. She was really arrogant at points.

One example is when NJ was repeatedly questioning her and Lucy was failing to give a proper answer (as usual), Lucy responded by saying "We're going round in circles" as though it was his fault. She has no humility or shame whatsoever for the position she is in: a convicted serial baby killer on the stand for attacking another baby. It's as if she thinks it's her place to criticise him daring to question her, rather than her being in the position of somebody who really, really needs to account for herself.

Another is that she has a real thing about being briefly trained at Liverpool Women's Hospital.

Despite polishing her performance, her answers remained as ridiculous as ever. "I don't recall" and "I can't answer that" were repeated ad nauseum. Despite not recalling the entire event, she does recall that she didn't know Baby K was having an x-ray (proving her tube was in the correct position minutes before her second tube displacement). This was quite funny, she answered "no" then corrected to "I don't recall". NJ pulled her up on it, and she played it off, completely undaunted.

She also recalls that she was informed of Baby K's death within days of it happening; that she didn't see Baby K move on the night she doesn't recall; that the handover hadn't happened yet at her third tube displacement; that Baby K did have her given name before leaving the CoC; and that she doesn't recall why she Facebooked the K family surname of the family and baby who she doesn't recall.

She tried so hard to not paint herself into a corner that she ended up causing herself more trouble and tanking her defense. She utterly refused to commit to her defense statement that Dr Jayaram had it in for her and was not acting in good faith. She refused to say he was incorrect, fabricating, or whatever, only that she couldn't recall, and couldn't answer for Dr. Jayaram.

I don't really know why this is, but the fact she wouldn't stick to her defense statement obviously must be very important because both NJ and BM fixated on it in their questioning. The defense statement is that Dr J isn't acting in good faith, and she thinks this because of his previous conduct towards her. NJ tried to pin her down on exactly when he was not acting in good faith. She tried her best to be evasive and non-committal, but eventually said it refers to her grievance and his behaviour surrounding that whole situation. NJ questioned her repeatedly on this; she did change her answer a bit, but the grievance produce was her most regular answer.

Spoiler: Ben Myers shouts at Lucy

The most obvious interpretation and inference of the defense statement is that Dr J is making tit up because he has it in for Lucy. That's it, that plus "I don't recall" is her defense.

In re-examination, BM questioned her repeatedly, desperately trying to lead her to saying the right thing: that the not-good faith also refers to the police interviews about her, not just the whole grievance thing in 2016. It was so blatantly obvious what he wanted her to say, but she just wasn't co-operating. She was as evasive with him as she was with NJ in refusing to get to the point.

BM lost his tit! He bleeping shouted at her! He was getting so bleeping frustrated, shouting MISS LETBY, EXPLAIN!! and trying to lead his horse to water but it just wouldn't bleeping drink! He finally, finally pinned her down to the crux of the matter, a yes or no question: does it include the police interviews or not? She was so obviously supposed to say yes. But she said no. I swear I literally felt Ben Myers deflate in that moment. He just went silent then swiftly moved on to avoid drawing attention to it (lol).

It was the stand-out moment of her testimony for me, and I can't believe it wasn't conveyed in the reporting. Last year it was "I knew what I was looking for - at" and the dance-the-dance exchanges with NJ. This year it came courtesy of her own defense! What the duck must the jury think of that?? I think Myers' anger just made her look even worse, because it's so ducked up for a defense barrister to be driven to shouting at his client like that.

What the duck was she playing at???? I can only imagine that she thinks being consistent with her answers between NJ and BM will look good? But she's too arrogant to listen to her barrister: if he thinks it's important for her to say, there must be a reason for that, and she should have played ball. Lucy though she knew better.

Little Miss PTSD didn't flinch, by the way. I think Ben Myers has trouble containing his anger. It's a very unpleasant trait in a man. A lot of women would have been a rattled.

Spoiler: The legal case for attempted murder

So once again, Lucy has nuked her own defense into orbit by giving her tuppence worth:

• on Monday she admitted that displacing a breathing tube in a baby that age is deadly (satisfying the intent part of attempted murder)
• on both days she's contradicted her defense statement that Dr J is not acting in good faith
• she refuses to criticise Dr J or commit to anything regarding him
• she says she can't recall the whole thing even though she recalls some very specific bits
• she pretty much accepts a nurse's witness account that Lucy was the one to alert the third desaturation
• and, she's made an a of herself on the stand.

I honestly thought that she had a good chance of getting away with it all, before she got on her broomstick and flew to the stand. I think the chances of conviction have increased from maybe 40% to 80%.

It's obvious she did it: that much is proven by timed computer records proving that she was at Baby K's cot side just before the collapse, while an x-ray minutes before showed the breathing tube was perfect before Lucy was there. The baby was definitely sedated for this.

However, the charge is only for the first desaturation; the second and third ones, the prosecution say, were just her attempts to make it look like there was a chronic problem with the tube after she was caught red handed during the first incident. The problem is, the first desaturation is basically Dr Jayaram's word vs Lucy's. Unfortunately, apparently Dr J didn't do a very good job on the stand and I've been told he was nervous, with BM giving him a really hard time. I believe Dr J, but there is a lot of potential for people to consider him not credible (thankfully, Lucy's made herself look even worse). Also the timeline for the first desaturation is very confusing, and the prosecution can't prove that the baby was given morphine beforehand, though it's a possibility.

The jury have to believe Dr J's account of the first breathing tube displacement is proven, and intent to kill is proven (this second bit is ticked off - thanks Lucifer!). I really hope the jury consider that the second incident is proven, which increases the likelihood of the first. I wish the second and third incidents were considered lesser charges in their own right.

Spoiler: hunter

It bears repeating that Lucy is now a hag. Last year she looked a bit plain and haggard, but now she's a full-blown unfortunate. Her police interviews were played again on Tuesday and I was once again still shocked at the change in appearance. In court, you can only see her from the side, and there are TV screens showing her from the front, so it switches straight from seeing a double-chinned, googly-eyed, saggy-lipped, droopy-lidded crone, to the pretty young woman she was just a few years ago, and back again. I have never seen someone lose their looks so completely in such a short space of time.

Her eyes are so weird. They are droopy, wonky, heavy-lidded, deeply recessed into her skull, blinking and rolling about all over the place. Her lids are so droopy they make her eyes look half-closed from the side, which makes them look like the eyes of a newly dead person.

It must be hard to go from being decent-looking to outright weird in just a few years, and to lose whatever interpersonal benefits she was used to receiving. Having said that, she seems to think the sun shines out of her own a and doesn't care about anything. She wasn't self conscious about unleashing the Nigel Farage frog throat whenever she tilted her head down, an action which would also cause her mouth to pucker.

Spoiler: Me being told off by ushers

I had a two horrible moments in court which led to being told off by ushers. One was when I tried to drink from my part-used water bottle. It was a very thin plastic material with a pull-up lid, and when I opened it, it suctioned air in and de-crumpled with a very loud CRACK, that was apparently heard on the audio in the satellite court (Miss PTSD didn't flicker at this, or any other loud noise). It was so embarrassing, the last thing anyone wants is cause any disturbance. The usher GLARED at me for two minutes straight. I don't know what he hoped to achieve, there was nothing I could do after the event. The other one is when a break was called, before the public had been let out (you're supposed to wait to be released), the woman positioned next to me said "excuse me" relatively loudly for the situation, and tried to get by. I stood up to let her pass and thought she might have an emergency. She was told by other observers she needed to wait, and sat back down. The court staff were scoffing and judgmental about this mistake. I think I was considered as somebody who was also trying to leave ahead of time, rather than somebody letting someone else pass. I got told off (or really, pulled to one side and had polite words with) for these some time after they happened.

I didn't see the other woman come back. They were excessively harsh about in innocent mistake from somebody who didn't know the court system. It's not like they tell you much about the in-out protocols, you're mostly just expected to know. Also, the mistake didn't actually cause any real problems. I think she might not have come back because she was embarrassed, which is a shame.

There is a general aura of unwelcomeness for trial watchers, I could feel right from the beginning that we are not wanted there. I think this might be because the place is swarming with Lucy's fans, so there's probably an assumption that all court watchers are of that persuasion. I had to keep reminding myself that being able to observe court is an essential part of open justice, and that I have every right to be there.

I felt very conspicuous because of the aforementioned incidents, and also because I am visibly autistic, plus was mostly sitting diagonally as one of my eyes is very short sighted.

Spoiler: Janet!

So after a break, in the corridor, I was talking to an older NG man about Lucy's performance and was saying what had improved since last year. (I had previously talked to him in the morning, establishing - like all the new NGs - he had not actually followed the previous trial, and I had said how it all looked much worse for her evidence-wise during that trial, which surprised him). Anyway I think the bits I mentioned were less impulsivity, and less pointless questions. I was in the middle of the corridor, and Janet was facing me, though I wasn't paying her any attention. She suddenly confronted me, saying something like "if you want to talk, can you do it somewhere else" in an angry/upset/anxious tone. I said something like I'm allowed to talk in the corridor. She repeated something like what she previously said, but added something like "keep your voice down because it's not appropriate". I again stated " I am talking in the corridor, are we not allowed to talk in corridors?" which she didn't answer. I'm not sure what she did next and I resumed talking to the NG.

I felt really curtailed in what I could say because I didn't know for sure if Janet would be given any special considerations as a friend of the defendant, plus I was on the backfoot after the previous court problems and didn't want to risk being kicked out. I wanted to say, "what is your authority to be telling me what to do?" She was so entitled to think it's her place to tell anyone else off! Who the duck does she think she is, she's just a fool who's ruining her own life to prostrate herself to a serial baby killer.

I was really butthurt about her mentioning "keep your voice down" because I have an unfortunate voice and have had non-stop mistreatment and judgement for it since I was 12. It is a physical fact that high-pitched voices are perceived as louder at the same decibels as regular voices (this is because each cilia in the ear collects sounds at specific frequencies, and in a nutshell the cilia collect more sound waves of a high pitched frequency, so it becomes amplified in the ear) so I'm always being silenced, despite speaking normally. It also stands out and is heard above all other voices. I think Janet was gone by this point, while I was bending the ear of the NG about this, suspecting this was why Janet targeted me as opposed to anyone else in the corridor speaking about her queen.

In hindsight I think she might have also known I was an easy target because of the things mentioned in the previous section. More importantly, I had previously spoken to her new bestie about Lucy in front of her. Which leads me to this whole other strange situation:

Spoiler: Janet's new BFF

So a pro-guilty trial watcher has gained entry into Janet's inner circle and become her confidant. Allegedly, Janet is "vulnerable" and this person is officially supporting them. This enables the trial watcher to enter court first with "friends and family", and to gain inside knowledge about the Letby's. All the other trial watcher stalwarts are pretending to not know each other to facilitate this, creating a very weird atmosphere.

I don't know myself whether Janet is "vulnerable" as I didn't see much of her aside from that altercation. However, she is at the very least a complete fool who is easy to mug off. It is possible to be both an entitled bleep, and vulnerable. If it's true that she is vulnerable, then I personally disapprove of the deception.

The NGs

I spoke to a lot of the NGs, and actually liked a few of them. Some fit the stereotypes, and some don't - I think the mainstream media articles have done one hell of a lot of damage. I will save the NGs for another post, because this is already too long.
---
I also met some fellow Tattlers @Wine o'clock, @Dolly Daydream, a couple who don't have usernames, and of course @SarahG300 back last year.

I can’t cope wi you !! ….

I don’t know how u message on ere … but if u need a lift in future just say lv xx
---

Hey everyone, I'm so sorry for how long it has taken me to get back to you and leave you all waiting. I live a very long way from Manchester and had a funny turn on the way home, and have been sleeping for most of the past couple of days. I just keep falling back to sleep, then in between trying to catch up on missed jobs.

It was me that Janet had a go at (after I defended her on here the other day! Little does she know!). I'm a little bit worried you will all be disappointed after all the anticipation, it's not that dramatic and was quite brief! It was just her entitlement and hostility, considering who she is. There's a bit of context for why I think I was targeted, but I will get to that later in the post. It feels like I should talk about court before talking about myself too much, so scroll down if you want to skip to Janet content - but don't get too excited, it's not that interesting! Much more "interesting" is the very well known trial watcher who has taken up residence in Janet's rectum, "looking after" her and managing to get themself in the position of being officially considered a "friend or family", so getting guaranteed front row seats in court.

Spoiler: Lucy

Lucy... there is just so much to say I barely know where to start! Disregarding the quality of her answers for now, overall her performance has been more polished than last year. Last year she seemed like a cross between a teenager and a politician, using blatant, juvenile tactics like asking stupid pointless questions to stall for time, while being evasive and trying her utmost to give non-answers to everything. Her answers were very impulsive last year and she seemed like an imbecile.

This trial, she took her time to answer, was being extra careful to not paint herself into any corners (failing spectacularly, which I'll get to) and has reduced the stupid questions to only occasionally pretending she doesn't understand things she particularly doesn't want to answer. Also, she didn't cry at all on the stand. I'm wondering if this is because her parents aren't present to perform for, or because she was criticised last year by NJ for only crying for herself and not the victims. So I have still never seen her in snivel mode, she's been a poker-faced harpy every time I've seen her.

Last year, I was absolutely flabbergasted at her behaviour. She was so unshakably confident and unflappable, I had honestly never seen anybody like her. The way she would say two contradictory things at the same time, and give the most ridiculous answers with such complete confidence and conviction, makes you doubt your own mind at the words you're hearing and makes your brain think it must be reasonable somehow? She made her non-answers sound like proper answers just by using the tone of her voice to imply things she didn't actually say. You had to really listen to the content of what she was saying, rather than how she said it, which I do do due to my interest in statement analysis. But I could really tell how she could be convincing to some people.

She is pretty much the same this year, though it loses the effect somewhat when she becomes too hostile. It also loses the effect once you are used to her: she was my first time witnessing a female psychopath in action, but I'm desensitized to it now (if anyone's interested, listen to Beverley Allitt's police interviews on Daily Motion to experience similar chutzpah, and use of vocal intonations). Nevertheless, one of the jurors appeared transfixed by watching her, and I like to think they were just as dumbstruck as I first was.

Lucy wouldn't have had much feedback on her previous testimony; she has very little access to the internet, so wouldn't have seen the critical comments mocking her performance. Her only access to the outside world is limited phone calls with Mummy, Daddy, and maybe Janet, who will only tell Diddums what a great job she did and how they're all big meanie pants for not believing her. She was in a separate court, so wouldn't have heard the police laughing at her. Bowel Movement is not supposed to advise her on her giving testimony, so I wonder if her slight improvements came from attempts at self-reflection.

On the other hand, this time she made less effort to pretend to be polite, and was openly contemptuous and abrupt with NJ from the word go. I guess she doesn't need to worry about the outcome so much, so she's feeling less stressed and just being herself. She was really arrogant at points.

One example is when NJ was repeatedly questioning her and Lucy was failing to give a proper answer (as usual), Lucy responded by saying "We're going round in circles" as though it was his fault. She has no humility or shame whatsoever for the position she is in: a convicted serial baby killer on the stand for attacking another baby. It's as if she thinks it's her place to criticise him daring to question her, rather than her being in the position of somebody who really, really needs to account for herself.

Another is that she has a real thing about being briefly trained at Liverpool Women's Hospital.

Despite polishing her performance, her answers remained as ridiculous as ever. "I don't recall" and "I can't answer that" were repeated ad nauseum. Despite not recalling the entire event, she does recall that she didn't know Baby K was having an x-ray (proving her tube was in the correct position minutes before her second tube displacement). This was quite funny, she answered "no" then corrected to "I don't recall". NJ pulled her up on it, and she played it off, completely undaunted.

She also recalls that she was informed of Baby K's death within days of it happening; that she didn't see Baby K move on the night she doesn't recall; that the handover hadn't happened yet at her third tube displacement; that Baby K did have her given name before leaving the CoC; and that she doesn't recall why she Facebooked the K family surname of the family and baby who she doesn't recall.

She tried so hard to not paint herself into a corner that she ended up causing herself more trouble and tanking her defense. She utterly refused to commit to her defense statement that Dr Jayaram had it in for her and was not acting in good faith. She refused to say he was incorrect, fabricating, or whatever, only that she couldn't recall, and couldn't answer for Dr. Jayaram.

I don't really know why this is, but the fact she wouldn't stick to her defense statement obviously must be very important because both NJ and BM fixated on it in their questioning. The defense statement is that Dr J isn't acting in good faith, and she thinks this because of his previous conduct towards her. NJ tried to pin her down on exactly when he was not acting in good faith. She tried her best to be evasive and non-committal, but
Ieventually said it refers to her grievance and his behaviour surrounding that whole situation. NJ questioned her repeatedly on this; she did change her answer a bit, but the grievance produce was her most regular answer.

Spoiler: Ben Myers shouts at Lucy

The most obvious interpretation and inference of the defense statement is that Dr J is making tit up because he has it in for Lucy. That's it, that plus "I don't recall" is her defense.

In re-examination, BM questioned her repeatedly, desperately trying to lead her to saying the right thing: that the not-good faith also refers to the police interviews about her, not just the whole grievance thing in 2016. It was so blatantly obvious what he wanted her to say, but she just wasn't co-operating. She was as evasive with him as she was with NJ in refusing to get to the point.

BM lost his tit! He bleeping shouted at her! He was getting so bleeping frustrated, shouting MISS LETBY, EXPLAIN!! and trying to lead his horse to water but it just wouldn't bleeping drink! He finally, finally pinned her down to the crux of the matter, a yes or no question: does it include the police interviews or not? She was so obviously supposed to say yes. But she said no. I swear I literally felt Ben Myers deflate in that moment. He just went silent then swiftly moved on to avoid drawing attention to it (lol).

It was the stand-out moment of her testimony for me, and I can't believe it wasn't conveyed in the reporting. Last year it was "I knew what I was looking for - at" and the dance-the-dance exchanges with NJ. This year it came courtesy of her own defense! What the duck must the jury think of that?? I think Myers' anger just made her look even worse, because it's so ducked up for a defense barrister to be driven to shouting at his client like that.

What the duck was she playing at???? I can only imagine that she thinks being consistent with her answers between NJ and BM will look good? But she's too arrogant to listen to her barrister: if he thinks it's important for her to say, there must be a reason for that, and she should have played ball. Lucy though she knew better.

Little Miss PTSD didn't flinch, by the way. I think Ben Myers has trouble containing his anger. It's a very unpleasant trait in a man. A lot of women would have been a rattled.

Spoiler: The legal case for attempted murder

So once again, Lucy has nuked her own defense into orbit by giving her tuppence worth:

• on Monday she admitted that displacing a breathing tube in a baby that age is deadly (satisfying the intent part of attempted murder)
• on both days she's contradicted her defense statement that Dr J is not acting in good faith
• she refuses to criticise Dr J or commit to anything regarding him
• she says she can't recall the whole thing even though she recalls some very specific bits
• she pretty much accepts a nurse's witness account that Lucy was the one to alert the third desaturation
• and, she's made an a of herself on the stand.

I honestly thought that she had a good chance of getting away with it all, before she got on her broomstick and flew to the stand. I think the chances of conviction have increased from maybe 40% to 80%.

It's obvious she did it: that much is proven by timed computer records proving that she was at Baby K's cot side just before the collapse, while an x-ray minutes before showed the breathing tube was perfect before Lucy was there. The baby was definitely sedated for this.

However, the charge is only for the first desaturation; the second and third ones, the prosecution say, were just her attempts to make it look like there was a chronic problem with the tube after she was caught red handed during the first incident. The problem is, the first desaturation is basically Dr Jayaram's word vs Lucy's. Unfortunately, apparently Dr J didn't do a very good job on the stand and I've been told he was nervous, with BM giving him a really hard time. I believe Dr J, but there is a lot of potential for people to consider him not credible (thankfully, Lucy's made herself look even worse). Also the timeline for the first desaturation is very confusing, and the prosecution can't prove that the baby was given morphine beforehand, though it's a possibility.

The jury have to believe Dr J's account of the first breathing tube displacement is proven, and intent to kill is proven (this second bit is ticked off - thanks Lucifer!). I really hope the jury consider that the second incident is proven, which increases the likelihood of the first. I wish the second and third incidents were considered lesser charges in their own right.

Spoiler: hunter

It bears repeating that Lucy is now a hag. Last year she looked a bit plain and haggard, but now she's a full-blown unfortunate. Her police interviews were played again on Tuesday and I was once again still shocked at the change in appearance. In court, you can only see her from the side, and there are TV screens showing her from the front, so it switches straight from seeing a double-chinned, googly-eyed, saggy-lipped, droopy-lidded crone, to the pretty young woman she was just a few years ago, and back again. I have never seen someone lose their looks so completely in such a short space of time.

Her eyes are so weird. They are droopy, wonky, heavy-lidded, deeply recessed into her skull, blinking and rolling about all over the place. Her lids are so droopy they make her eyes look half-closed from the side, which makes them look like the eyes of a newly dead person.

It must be hard to go from being decent-looking to outright weird in just a few years, and to lose whatever interpersonal benefits she was used to receiving. Having said that, she seems to think the sun shines out of her own a and doesn't care about anything. She wasn't self conscious about unleashing the Nigel Farage frog throat whenever she tilted her head down, an action which would also cause her mouth to pucker.

Spoiler: Me being told off by ushers

I had a two horrible moments in court which led to being told off by ushers. One was when I tried to drink from my part-used water bottle. It was a very thin plastic material with a pull-up lid, and when I opened it, it suctioned air in and de-crumpled with a very loud CRACK, that was apparently heard on the audio in the satellite court (Miss PTSD didn't flicker at this, or any other loud noise). It was so embarrassing, the last thing anyone wants is cause any disturbance. The usher GLARED at me for two minutes straight. I don't know what he hoped to achieve, there was nothing I could do after the event. The other one is when a break was called, before the public had been let out (you're supposed to wait to be released), the woman positioned next to me said "excuse me" relatively loudly for the situation, and tried to get by. I stood up to let her pass and thought she might have an emergency. She was told by other observers she needed to wait, and sat back down. The court staff were scoffing and judgmental about this mistake. I think I was considered as somebody who was also trying to leave ahead of time, rather than somebody letting someone else pass. I got told off (or really, pulled to one side and had polite words with) for these some time after they happened.

I didn't see the other woman come back. They were excessively harsh about in innocent mistake from somebody who didn't know the court system. It's not like they tell you much about the in-out protocols, you're mostly just expected to know. Also, the mistake didn't actually cause any real problems. I think she might not have come back because she was embarrassed, which is a shame.

There is a general aura of unwelcomeness for trial watchers, I could feel right from the beginning that we are not wanted there. I think this might be because the place is swarming with Lucy's fans, so there's probably an assumption that all court watchers are of that persuasion. I had to keep reminding myself that being able to observe court is an essential part of open justice, and that I have every right to be there.

I felt very conspicuous because of the aforementioned incidents, and also because I am visibly autistic, plus was mostly sitting diagonally as one of my eyes is very short sighted.

Spoiler: Janet!

So after a break, in the corridor, I was talking to an older NG man about Lucy's performance and was saying what had improved since last year. (I had previously talked to him in the morning, establishing - like all the new NGs - he had not actually followed the previous trial, and I had said how it all looked much worse for her evidence-wise during that trial, which surprised him). Anyway I think the bits I mentioned were less impulsivity, and less pointless questions. I was in the middle of the corridor, and Janet was facing me, though I wasn't paying her any attention. She suddenly confronted me, saying something like "if you want to talk, can you do it somewhere else" in an angry/upset/anxious tone. I said something like I'm allowed to talk in the corridor. She repeated something like what she previously said, but added something like "keep your voice down because it's not appropriate". I again stated " I am talking in the corridor, are we not allowed to talk in corridors?" which she didn't answer. I'm not sure what she did next and I resumed talking to the NG.

I felt really curtailed in what I could say because I didn't know for sure if Janet would be given any special considerations as a friend of the defendant, plus I was on the backfoot after the previous court problems and didn't want to risk being kicked out. I wanted to say, "what is your authority to be telling me what to do?" She was so entitled to think it's her place to tell anyone else off! Who the duck does she think she is, she's just a fool who's ruining her own life to prostrate herself to a serial baby killer.

I was really butthurt about her mentioning "keep your voice down" because I have an unfortunate voice and have had non-stop mistreatment and judgement for it since I was 12. It is a physical fact that high-pitched voices are perceived as louder at the same decibels as regular voices (this is because each cilia in the ear collects sounds at specific frequencies, and in a nutshell the cilia collect more sound waves of a high pitched frequency, so it becomes amplified in the ear) so I'm always being silenced, despite speaking normally. It also stands out and is heard above all other voices. I think Janet was gone by this point, while I was bending the ear of the NG about this, suspecting this was why Janet targeted me as opposed to anyone else in the corridor speaking about her queen.

In hindsight I think she might have also known I was an easy target because of the things mentioned in the previous section. More importantly, I had previously spoken to her new bestie about Lucy in front of her. Which leads me to this whole other strange situation:

Spoiler: Janet's new BFF

So a pro-guilty trial watcher has gained entry into Janet's inner circle and become her confidant. Allegedly, Janet is "vulnerable" and this person is officially supporting them. This enables the trial watcher to enter court first with "friends and family", and to gain inside knowledge about the Letby's. All the other trial watcher stalwarts are pretending to not know each other to facilitate this, creating a very weird atmosphere.

I don't know myself whether Janet is "vulnerable" as I didn't see much of her aside from that altercation. However, she is at the very least a complete fool who is easy to mug off. It is possible to be both an entitled bleep, and vulnerable. If it's true that she is vulnerable, then I personally disapprove of the deception.

The NGs

I spoke to a lot of the NGs, and actually liked a few of them. Some fit the stereotypes, and some don't - I think the mainstream media articles have done one hell of a lot of damage. I will save the NGs for another post, because this is already too long.
---
I also met some fellow Tattlers @Wine o'clock, @Dolly Daydream, a couple who don't have usernames, and of course @SarahG300 back last year.

I seen her flapping her arms… it was not
---
Oh that write up from cack … I cornt tag …

how brilliant is that!!!! She’s very young!!!
She’s brilliant. !

 

[Cack_Conroe]

Oh Cack,

Thank you for the detailed analysis of court this week & hope your feeling better now & glad you met other tattlers & was looked after!

So sorry Janet subjected you to that in the court corridor it was uncalled for, her silly tantrums that she also did on the first Wednesday there is no need for it and am sorry you had that to to deal with along with the usher thing - last year we could come and go as we pleased in court 8 as did the police so you weren’t to know.

Loved your write up but this as I was reading at work today had me howling & I’ve told my daughter to!

“I honestly thought that she had a good chance of getting away with it all, before she got on her broomstick and flew to the stand”

Take care & look after yourself!!

Thanks! Not sure I can manage another Manchester journey lol. If only I had my own broomstick.

Yeah, it felt like an irrational outburst rather than her being the big I am ( @MmmB777 ) , like a kind of childish, entitled expectation that her feelings should always be catered to and centered or something? Something was upsetting her (people talking about Lucy) and therefore it should rightfully stop, in her eyes. I suspect that because Janet is entitled, so doesn't see Lucy's own arrogance as abnormal or a problem.

This was my second day in court 7, I did actually know, but was moving for the other girl and was treated like I was going to leave, too. I really wish I had stopped her, it would have been less embarrassing for all involved, but I just thought she must have an emergency or something and it's not my place. Also it's just kind of automatic to move if someone says "excuse me"!
---

I can’t cope wi you !! ….

I don’t know how u message on ere … but if u need a lift in future just say lv xx
---

I seen her flapping her arms… it was not
---
Oh that write up from cack … I cornt tag …

how brilliant is that!!!! She’s very young!!!
She’s brilliant. !

Aw thanks <3 The site banned direct messaging on here after people were sharing banned information about influencers! But, I live 6 hours away on the south coast.

Also, I'm pretty old, I'm just a squeaky autist so perceived as younger than I really am

I'm going back to read older posts on here now - definitely keep writing yours, I have loved hearing your perspective x

 

[F1Grid]

Crying at the fact the stalwarts are pretending not to know each other to facilitate the mole

 

[Cack_Conroe]

Well that was interesting … she was again quite cocky with johnson … hate hate hate+++
Didn’t recall anything what could implicate her … johnson was arguing this a lot … like did she think dr j was lying etc and he was questioning her about pulling the tubes out of baby k… and he said somert like “oh cos ur not the type of person to do that are u” xx

I was privy to sit in the main court for the last bit … some discussions between the judge n barristers and judge said would letby want to speak to her council b4 or after dinner …. “I want to do it now” she said …, she’s quite bossy !!! IMO

she does look more Haggered than last year I think …probably doing her head in that she hasn’t been able to hurt or kill for a long time …. I don’t think they can find her anything but guilty !! Johnson hit nail on head when he said she only isn’t recalling being there for these collapses cos it’s a lie to try cover up she was caught red handed!!!

Janet had a hissy fit today too come on janet not like ya ever gona be drinking cocktails again wi letby xx

I felt bad after we all convinced you to go in court 7, only to get stuck behind the telly, feet away from the hag but unable to see her!

She seems massively bossy. I feel like we've seen her real personality this trial because she has nothing to worry about, so it's full mask-off and she can say and do whatever she feels like.

I don't think she cares much about the outcome, she just enjoys being the star of the show on the stand, and the thrill of trying to verbally deceive people. Now she can't hurt babies any more, the next best thing is to relive it all in great detail, in front of their parents.

Last year I got a huge feeling that she was domineering and potentially intimidating if she wanted to be, but it was just a feeling. After her behaviour in court this year it's proof that she's an absolute harridan.

This is the real Lucy: the same person who shouted at a colleague for raising the alarm when one of Lucy's babies desaturated, and who shouted at a new mother for comforting somebody else's crying baby, is the same person who is comfortable criticizing Nick Johnson and being bossy to the judge.

 

[Cack_Conroe]

Well I’ve been refreshing tattle for two-days-straight waiting for the goss and it certainly didn’t disappoint. Thank you so much for this long post!!!!. I appreciate the details because I’m one of those ppl who just need to know everything so thank you so much

I’m so happy to hear prison life has turned her into an even uglier, wonky eyed, double chinned hunter. You say she’s lost her looks so quickly, and considering she didn’t them to start with I can only imagine the absolute state of her now.

Someone on Reddit posted about the “we’re just going round in circles now” and said it was a really jarring moment in court, and raised a few eyebrows around the room. I’ve not seen it mentioned in any of the reporting, but I’m hoping the jury also picked up on it too. The attitude on her stinks, she’s being questioned about murdering a 25 week baby girl who weighed 500g. How dare she speak to the barrister in that way considering what she’s being accused of (+ convicted of!!!!)

I am praying she gets found guilty. Although I am not as confident as last time. I feel like last time the jury could see the patterns forming, the less likelihood of it being innocent coincidences when there was just so many babies who would suddenly collapse minuites after a parent or nurse left the room. In this case; they have only heard about baby k. And I worry it’s less convincing it’s not to me. But to a jury who didn’t follow the first trial I worry it might be.

Absolutely thrilled to hear Janet’s been duped by someone from the pro guilty camp. Absolutely Love that for her. What a mug

Thanks, I'm glad it was worth the long wait! Sorry it took so long. I've got a few more details I forgot to add, which I will put at the end of this post.

The "circles" bit was written up in the Guardian I think but not the live reporting.

I was really confident about the Baby K charge last year. Having a direct eyewitness to an attack was so strong, and I thought that the jury would never believe a nurse over a doctor, especially when said nurse is such an unreliable narrator.

I was less confident this year, and thought if Lucy didn't take the stand she would most likely get away with it, because of the complicated timeline and attacks on Dr J's credibility.

But take heart that she's done a really really bad job and has pretty much shat on her own defense. Not only does she disagree with her own defense statement about Dr Jayaram, but she's disagreeing with agreed evidence that waiting for a 25 week gestation baby to self-correct their breathing is not an appropriate course of action. If she "doesn't recall" being there doing such a thing, then why is she feeling the need to argue the toss that it was an acceptable thing to do? She was acting like such an expert, "from my training at Liverpool Women's Hospital blah blah". She's a such a wanker.

All the NGs I asked didn't follow the first trial, showing how important it is that people need to know the actual nitty-gritty details to appreciate the case. I'm also worried the recent conspiracy stories with outright lies being published in the mainstream media will have been seen by any of the jury. This is not something that was a factor during the previous trial. At least the jury can focus all their energy on this one charge, and don't have the pressure of potentially ruining an innocent person's life.


---------------------------------------------------

More details:

• I mentioned her thing about Liverpool Women's Hospital as an example of her arrogance, but forgot to write up the whole paragraph. Several times she snootily mentioned "my training at Liverpool Women's Hospital" as though her brief stints as a student there gave her this huge prestige. She really seems to think her very distant and brief association with the place makes her superior.
• Lucy was described in a 2018 article as having a Welsh lilt. Her Blacon home was within a mile of the border with Wales, and Hereford people are supposed to sound a bit Welsh. Last year, I detected maybe 0.2% of her words sounding Welsh, but I didn't hear a single Welsh pronunciation this time.
• (Can't remember if I said this already) Lucy was pretending she had no idea what information she had been given by police during her interviews. At the end, Judge Goss asked Lucy about the page numbers of the information (if there was a page 9-10, then does it follow that there were pages 1-8? She didn't recall, of course), Goss at first had this incredulous look on his face and tone in his voice, but then corrected himself to looking and sounding neutral towards the end of asking the question.
• Not only was Little Miss PTSD very much not startled by loud noises, she didn't have her comfort blankie with her either.

---

Hopefully not baby Ks mum she means because what other way should someone look at their child’s potential would-be murderer

I think it could only be a member of the legal team, certain court staff, or jury, as they are the people in front of her and she almost never looks behind her.
---

I think egg head was there yes.
I mean that’s a duck off moment in any marriage in my book …. No I won’t come to court with you you mad simp would be my response.
For every pan there is a lid as they say.

Janet definitely didn't have any husband with her on Monday or Tuesday.

Does anyone know if Janet has kids? I'm wondering if she sees Lucy as a surrogate daughter? Just theorizing.
---

Spoiler

Hello roving reporters,

Today, I arrived early and, while sitting outside the court, I overheard members of the NG discussing Lucy in a disturbingly enthusiastic manner, which left me quite agitated. In courtroom 7, I sat next to one of the men who was meticulously writing pages of notes. Another older individual was also taking notes, but I couldn't discern much of their content.

Although I didn't see Lucy enter the courtroom, I observed her facial expressions when the court was filled. She displayed microexpressions of fear. Once BNE began questioning her, her expression shifted to one of contempt and disgust. Her responses were notably curt, and as usual exhibited 'poor memory recall' despite having access to the files for years. As other reporters mentioned, she spoke as if she were still currently employed as a nurse at Chester, with no use of past tense.

However, I did notice other microexpressions from LL, but I am uncertain whether noting these in detail would be in contempt of court (even though they are only obsverations). The same applies to her language use (not regarding past/present tense). These observations are drawn from my clinical practice and the teaching/training I received before working in a psychiatric hospital during my training.

Big Nick appeared tired in court today; his pace was slow, but he conveyed his points clearly. In contrast, BM seemed quite aggressive and almost frustrated with Lucy for not answering his questions 'correctly.' His presence, as always, felt demanding and arrogant, filling the courtroom whenever he spoke.

And yes, Janet was extremely irrational and I believe her behaviour was uncalled for.

However, I met a few tattle reporters who were absolutely lovely and so friendly. It was wonderful to meet you @wine o clock @Cack_Conroe . It was nice to go for coffee with @Cack_Conroe and chat further

I haven't read today's live updates, but CS2CR wasn't there today (unless he has a stand in, idk?), so there won't be a video from him. I'm at work at the moment, so thought I'd write a quick post (sorry it's a bit jumbled up) before I have to turn my phone off, because, best practice 'n all ++++

It was great to meet you on Tuesday and hear your analysis of Lucy's body language - it was like a live episode of Faking It! I don't reckon it would be contempt of court to share what you saw, as everything not restricted that happens in court is supposed to be public knowledge. There were definitely times last year when they mentioned Lucy's body language, such as her eyes darting from side to side then closing, when she made her "I knew what I was looking for - at" mistake.

 

[Cack_Conroe]

Few more Janet observations that I forgot:

• One time, she left the court crying; this wasn't the same time as when she had a go at me.
• About two minutes after the altercation, I went to the downstairs toilets (which are cleaner) and found Janet and BFF in there. We all ignored each other, but I managed to catch Janet's eye to give her evils.
• Janet looks identical to that picture of her with Lucy: sleeveless top, skirt, heels, and thick short mop of black hair in exactly the same style.
• I get vibes that she's emotionally incompetent rather than a simpleton, but really didn't have much to observe other than that previously described.

Another court thing I forgot: sadly the judge will direct the jury to disregard speculation about the other baby whose tubes mysteriously detached that night.

(Yes I'm catching up on the whole thread late at night lol).

 

[Peepynose]

Thank you to our reporters, it’s been so insightful reading all of your guys’ posts! I’m glad you found each other when you were there too to have some support as I can imagine it is emotionally draining listening to the details all day.
I wanted to ask does LL still get to sit in court first before everyone arrives like the last trial? I was wondering if they still have to treat her with kid gloves even though she’s been found guilty before.

 

[Tofino]

I’m loving all the accounts from our very own tattle reporters this week

I wonder if the stricter court rules about people coming in and out is on the Letby Rider of Demands as last year people were allowed to do that and someone came in to court 7 during her giving evidence and she had a ‘traumatic’ reaction to it.

I find it interesting how well she appears to have recovered from her PTSD given it is less than a year since she was found guilty of murdering and attempting to murder several babies and sentenced with 14 whole life orders. You’d think her trauma symptoms would be worse now, not better!!

 

[IGiveUp22]

I’m loving all the accounts from our very own tattle reporters this week

I wonder if the stricter court rules about people coming in and out is on the Letby Rider of Demands as last year people were allowed to do that and someone came in to court 7 during her giving evidence and she had a ‘traumatic’ reaction to it.

I find it interesting how well she appears to have recovered from her PTSD given it is less than a year since she was found guilty of murdering and attempting to murder several babies and sentenced with 14 whole life orders. You’d think her trauma symptoms would be worse now, not better!!

Almost like she didn’t really have PTSD

I remember at the time it was shared in court in the first trial and it sparked a whole back and forth at the time. The PTSD wasn’t even for the trauma of what she was accused of…it was for being arrested which then later came out in the trial, didn’t happen how she said it did anyway. Honestly this woman is just a pathological liar

 

[jolt321]

Some great write ups about attending court. Really enjoyed reading through those. I've been having a look across social media and seeing what the Letby super fans are up to.

Twitter seems to be their favourite playground. There are a dozen or so hardcore posters who spend all day posting #letbyisinnocent all over. It's actually quite disgraceful as they are also constantly tagging media, celebs, mps etc and trying to get anyone at all to listen. Also desperately sharing the new yorker article around to people that know nothing about the case. That one particularly annoys me as anyone who reads that first will probably think the murdering wench in innocent. A couple have also stated that they hope the jury see this.

That idiot Damian is on it every day and has a couple of losers that back up all his posts. Be warned, If you call him a deluded c**t he will block you.

obviously the green haired nutter is still around, she has been a bit less active recently. head Gill is constantly posting tit. A moron called "overlordmainstream" has an obsession with Letby. Gill has a few hangers-on. A particular annoying wick is "Michael McConville" claims to be a retired GP and spends all day on twitter telling everyone Letby is innocent. He has just created his own "justice for Lucy Letby group with 56 members currently. "Veracity" is another one that spends all day every day # Letby and sharing the new yorker article as far and wide as possible.



Also disappointed to see how many gullible idiots there are over on Mumsnet. Thank goodness for tattle, websleuths, Reddit etc.

In terms of the actual trial, I'm currently around 90% confident of a conviction and I'm also expecting it to be unanimous and take very little time.

How can a jury believe anything Letby says. She is so clearly bullshitting imho,

 

[sebanna]

The New Yorker article was pushed very heavily on Mumsnet. They didn't like any criticism of it. The article failed to point out that the insulin babies both had a twin brother, consequently what happened to baby E and M, was omitted.

Even if the judge tells the jury to forget about the other baby whose tube was removed, the jury have still heard it. They will have probably seen the post it note confession, even if it wasn't shown in evidence. They will know what Letby is. They also don't need to worry about getting it wrong and sending an innocent person to jail.

 

[MavisBeacon]

Yes, at least this time the question is not "did this woman harm or kill at all?" but "this woman has been proven in court to have killed and harmed a bunch of babies - did she do this one too?"

 

[Pinky Joe]

I don't think the jury will be confused about the other baby, Chester Standard, June 20. The other baby extubated the day before.

 

[sebanna]

There appears to be two other incidents. The other baby whose tube came out the day before and a baby whose longline snapped, while being cared for by Letby.
---
It appears to be the same baby that Letby was looking after the night before. It looks like she did this all the time but it didn't always lead to a major incident.

 

[Tofino]

New thread, it’s been a while (six months!)

Lucy Letby Case #72

Added a poll for old times sake! 😄 Baby K Retrial[/U][/B] Prosecution and Defence have both finished presenting their evidence to the jury. Lucy testified on the stand last week, reporting here: Day 1 https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/24406288.recap-lucy-letby-trial-monday-june-24/ Day 2...

tattle.life